Summary
The codedb MCP server exposes a large tool surface (~23 tools). With Claude Code's deferred-tool mechanism this means every session spends ToolSearch round-trips just to load tool schemas before doing any real work, and the tool definitions tax cached context each turn.
Evidence
- Every audited agent run began with 2
ToolSearch calls (to load codedb tool schemas) before the first real action.
- In the A/B benchmark, codedb runs emitted +23.5% more output tokens than the native-tools baseline (more, smaller tool calls), which is the main reason a ~23% raw-token saving converted to only ~2% cost saving at Sonnet pricing.
Impact
- Per-session schema-loading overhead and per-turn context tax.
- High tool-call/output-token count blunts the cost benefit of the token savings.
Suggested direction
- Consolidate overlapping tools (e.g.
read/outline; search/find/word/glob) into fewer, mode-flagged tools.
- Ship a slim default toolset, with the long tail opt-in.
Found via an independent SWE-bench Lite token-efficiency benchmark: identical agent (`claude -p`, Sonnet 4.6) and tasks, only the tool surface differs - native Read/Grep/Edit vs codedb MCP tools. N=51 paired instances; full harness + data available.
Summary
The codedb MCP server exposes a large tool surface (~23 tools). With Claude Code's deferred-tool mechanism this means every session spends ToolSearch round-trips just to load tool schemas before doing any real work, and the tool definitions tax cached context each turn.
Evidence
ToolSearchcalls (to load codedb tool schemas) before the first real action.Impact
Suggested direction
read/outline;search/find/word/glob) into fewer, mode-flagged tools.Found via an independent SWE-bench Lite token-efficiency benchmark: identical agent (`claude -p`, Sonnet 4.6) and tasks, only the tool surface differs - native Read/Grep/Edit vs codedb MCP tools. N=51 paired instances; full harness + data available.